USA and the Middle East

[Robert Tulip]

Folks:

Thanks for this very interesting discussion. Would any of you be interested in starting a new thread in the Politics/History section, to discuss U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinians (i.e., the Holbrook and Mitchell areas)? I ask because I see that you've been discussing U.S. foreign policy towards these countries to some extent in light of Bacevich's book, and because these seem to be the key hot-button foreign policy issues that the U.S. will likely face in the coming months. We could discuss, for example, the principles that we think should guide U.S. policy toward each country, the principles that the Obama administration identifies for its policy toward each country, how the Obama administration's actions square with its stated principles and the principles we think should govern, the complications arising from the legacy of the Bush administration's conduct toward each country, etc. If anyone is interested, here are some suggestions for beginning discussion:

* The new Haass & Indyk article on Middle East policy in Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20090101f ... genda.html ;

* Jim Hoagland's "warning" column about Afghanistan in yesterday's Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02512.html , arguing, among other things, that the Karzai government may soon fail, and there is no individual or group favorable to U.S. interests to replace him;

* Today's news, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/world ... ?ref=world , that Pakistan has ceded a portion of its country to the Taliban, and officially permitted the Taliban to exercise Islamic law there, giving more evidence of the weakness of president Zardari, and raising the possibility of a simultaneous collapse of both the Afghan and Pakistani central governments to the Taliban, with consequences for Iran and India;

* The Obama administration has begun to reach out to Iran, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/world ... ran&st=cse , while Iran's president Ahmadinejad has been substantially weakened by falling oil prices and a worsening domestic economy, see Laura Secor's New Yorker blogpost, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... r-kha.html ;

* Israel is in the process of a change of government, with many commentators predicting that Likud will form a coalition government with a conservative party, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/world ... 009&st=cse . The U.S. has in the past found it difficult to work with Mr. Netanhayu, so if he becomes prime minister, Sen. Mitchell may find it tough going.

Thanks for considering this.

Richards1000, thanks for this useful set of resources on current affairs. I hope to look further at the linked articles. My view is that the risk of increased polarisation in the Middle East is high, with Israel rejecting peace and Islamism on a steady rise.

The USA gives Israel about five billion dollars per year, so actually has more leverage and responsibility than is sometimes admitted.

I look at Israel in a long time frame. It has some similarities to the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1100, which was able to conquer by force of arms until the Arabs found a leader in Saladin.

There is also a continuity with ancient Israel, where the Biblical prophets blamed the captivity in Babylon on Israel's arrogance.

[Dissident Heart]

Peace, Propaganda and the Holy Land



Jimmy Carter "Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan that Will Work" Democracy Now 2/11/09



Norman Finkelstein: Is Criticism of Israel Anti-Semitic?



Noam Chomsky: The United States - Israel's Godfather



Rabbi Lerner against the war

[Grim]

Welcome back DH, where have you been? In small celebration of your return I submit this for your enjoyment with the straightest of lip.

I recommend skipping ahead to 9:00min to around 13:30min which deals with more modern times.

This is definitely more accessible.

I'm no expert on his factual accuracy, but I'll bet he's got the bible related aspects down. Interesting angle, watching right now but I am sure there are more samples from the religious perspective I can post later.

THE ARAB- ISRAELI CONTROVERSY



Also here is: Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land { Part 2 }

[Robert Tulip]

Hi DH, nice to hear from you again. The summary of one of the youtube videos you posted is quoted below. This question of whether Israel is aggressive or defensive is really interesting, since the facts suggest the former while American opinion tends to believe the latter. It is a really weird disjunct. As something of a capitalist-roader myself, I am very worried by the Israeli attitude of hatred and bigotry towards the Palestinians, and by the rightwing shift in the recent Israel election. The Muslim hatred for them will overflow like a tsunami if they stay so intransigent.

Reading the Bacevich article that Grim recently posted, I was struck by his focus on American expansionism. It seems to me that Palestinian land, through US support for Zionism, has become the victim of a heedless American attitude that dates to the frontier but is now constrained elsewhere. I always thought there was an irony in General Westmoreland's name. While the US underwrites carte blanche Zionism I get the impression there is little hope for dialogue.

Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land provides a striking comparison of U.S. and international media coverage of the crisis in the Middle East, zeroing in on how structural distortions in U.S. coverage have reinforced false perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This pivotal documentary exposes how the foreign policy interests of American political elites--oil, and a need to have a secure military base in the region, among others--work in combination with Israeli public relations strategies to exercise a powerful influence over how news from the region is reported. Through the voices of scholars, media critics, peace activists, religious figures, and Middle East experts, Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land carefully analyzes and explains how--through the use of language, framing and context--the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza remains hidden in the news media, and Israeli colonization of the occupied terrorities appears to be a defensive move rather than an offensive one. The documentary also explores the ways that U.S. journalists, for reasons ranging from intimidation to a lack of thorough investigation, have become complicit in carrying out Israel's PR campaign. At its core, the documentary raises questions about the ethics and role of journalism, and the relationship between media and politics.

[Grim]

Amazingly well done reporting of the situation.

[richards1000]

Folks:

Thanks for starting this thread.

I agree with the Haass & Indyk approach. I think the U.S.'s interest is in a strong, independent, secure Israel, and an eventual two-state solution respecting Israel and the Palestinians, with Israel trading land for peace. In the short term, since implementing a two-state solution probably isn't feasible now, I agree that the U.S. should promote a peace agreement between Israel and Syria. (I think Aaron David Miller also advocates this in his new book and in his recent Bloggingheads TV diavlog with Eli Lake.) This would sever Syria's ties with Iran, and substantially reduce Iran's influence in Lebanon and Gaza. And then the U.S. can pursue its direct talks with Iran, pushing Iran steadily to recognize Israel's right to exist, and to cease support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and to end its nuclear arms development program. A separate peace deal between Syria and Israel could also permit Israel, Syria, and Lebanon to begin regional economic development on a substantial scale, preparing them well for the global economic rebound, and perhaps setting the framework for a regional economic community.

I also agree with the ideas of encouraging reform of Fatah to substantially reduce corruption, trying to identify moderate members of Hamas and encourage them to cooperate with Fatah, and have these moderate Hamas members and the Fatah leadership form a unified Palestinian government, which could provide effective governance over both West Bank and Gaza.

It will be interesting to see whether Netanyahu can persuade Livni to join his new coalition government and render it broader and more centrist. Odds of effective governance are probably much greater if Livni's party joins, but her party seems very reluctant to participate in a government that includes the far right parties. I think Netanyahu's last term as prime minister showed that a narrow, rightist Israeli government probably won't be very effective on most issues, including progress towards peace with the Palestinians.

[Robert Tulip]

I think the U.S.'s interest is in a strong, independent, secure Israel, and an eventual two-state solution respecting Israel and the Palestinians, with Israel trading land for peace.

I agree with this comment, but not with the Haass/Indyk approach. Underpinning their view is an implicit sense of Israeli moral superiority which I don’t think accords with the facts. Their call to use America’s nuclear umbrella to defend an unjust expansionist society is a recipe for disaster. Achieving the two-state solution in my view requires full implementation of UN Resolution 242, meaning that Israel has to give up the settlements in the West Bank which the Security Council has said are illegal, and retreat to its 1967 borders. I actually think that the goodwill that would result from such a decision would be sufficient to turn the tide of Islamist hatred, and would open up a potential for dialogue and real security where now there is only increasing polarisation.

If you watch the video posted by Dissident Heart, it seems clear that there is a strong propaganda machine that is distorting US perceptions of the conflict in favour of Israel. For example, the land-for-peace proposal a few years ago is often portrayed by supporters of Zionism as an example of Palestinian intransigence, but the reality is that Israel sought agreement to its effective ongoing control of the whole West Bank, with the Palestinians confined to the equivalent of apartheid Bantustans. The twisting of the facts by Israel and its supporters on this actually does remind me of Goebbels, hard as this is to say. If Israel is ever to get agreement from Palestinians to renounce their right of return after the 1948 Nakba, Israel will have to back down on its illegal colonisation of the West Bank.

The sad reality is that Israel has become a focal point for the colonial expansionist movement which Bacevich notes is such a dangerous part of the historic western self image and practice. Check out the attitudes of the settlers, they are mad.* The Israeli argument that its so-called “facts on the ground” should change the status of negotiations about its illegal occupation of the West Bank is simply a basis for growing Islamist fury, feeding anti-Semitic prejudices. The Israeli view is just like the American attitude to ‘red indians’ during the frontier expansion days, when native Americans were viewed as sub-human. If Israel applies racist policies towards Palestine it is hardly surprising if the whole Islamic world gradually develops prejudicial attitudes towards Israel. And the Islamic world is big.

My support for Israel is based on the view that it is a modern rational state which has great potential for leadership in the Middle East by promoting the social and economic development of the region. Such development is a much better path to peace and security than Israel’s current aggressive approach. For example, Israel should support bringing water to Gaza from Turkey. Zionism, with its claims to Biblical legitimacy, is in fact a racist religious doctrine that legitimises war and is against the long term interests of the Jewish people.
*

Settler violence
Settlers have attacked Palestinians, unhindered by Israeli army and police units, in an incident described by the Israeli press and by Prime Minister Olmert as a "pogrom."[116] In Hebron on the West Bank in December, 2008, a few dozen masked Jewish settlers attacked the house of an innocent Palestinian family numbering close to 20 people, all of them women and children save for three men. The women of the Palestinian family cried for help but their neighbors were too scared to approach the house, frightened of the Jewish security guards from Kiryat Arba who sealed off the home and who cursed the journalists documenting the attack. The masked settlers set fire to the house and shattered the windows with stones with the Palestinian family still inside, as hundreds of Jewish settlers witnessed the attack and offered suggestions to the attackers to harm the family more effectively. The Israeli army personnel nearby did not call for backup until after the house was destroyed. [117]
Another incident that sparked coverage in the New York Times was a violent settler protest at the Palestinian village of Funduk in November 2007, in which hundreds of settlers converged at the entrance of the village and rampaged. The protest occurred five days after a settler was killed in response to settlers' illegal seizure of Palestinian land without Israeli government response to Palestinian complaints of the land seizure. The settlers smashed the windows of houses and cars. According to Funduk villagers, Israeli soldiers and police accompanied the protesters but mostly stood aside while the settlers rampaged.[118]
Settlers are particularly active during the Palestinian olive harvest season.[110] Olive farmers and families are targeted by settlers while on their fields, and are assaulted or shot-at. Numerous organizations have documented serious abuses by settlers during this season, and many international and Israeli organizations organize campaigns to protect Palestinians on the fields during the harvest.[119][120][121][122][123]
Since the beginning of Second Intifada, 41 Palestinians were killed by Israeli civilians in the Palestinian territories, while 233 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians in the territories in the same period. (Note: according to B'Tselem, many of the Israeli civilians who were killed in the territories were not residents of the territories at the time, and as such would not be considered 'settlers'). The total number of Palestinians killed in the territories is over 3300 (though this number does not differentiate between Palestinian combatants and Palestinian civilians), while the total number of Israelis is 458.[124]

[richards1000]

According to Secretary of State Clinton's press comments on Feb. 3, 2009, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/02/115864.htm , the official policy of the U.S. respecting Israel and the Palestinians is "to try to help them make progress toward a negotiated agreement that would end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, create an independent and viable Palestinian state in both the West Bank and Gaza, and provide Israel with the peace and security that it has sought." I believe that this is consistent with the policy of the Israeli Kadima Party, headed by Minister Tzipi Livni, as stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadima#Platform . Neither policy appears to endorse any form of imperialism.

[Robert Tulip]

Neither policy appears to endorse any form of imperialism.

You have to look at the reality of Israel's presence in the West Bank, and its siege of Gaza. Israel has established a network of settlements and Jewish-only roads crisscrossing the whole of the West Bank and surrounding Arab East Jerusalem. This map of illegal Zionist colonies certainly looks imperial.

I don't think Kadima endorses Security Council Resolution 242 calling for retreat to the 1967 borders. Until 242 is applied, I think it is fair to say that Israel is maintaining an imperial occupation of the West Bank. The annual $5-6 billion of US aid to Israel facilitates this occupation.

With Gaza, the Hamas policy seems to be to use rockets to goad Israel into retaliation, with the view that this will worsen Israel's international reputation. The recent invasion, with around one thousand innocents slaughtered by Israel, suggests that Hamas's strategy is working.

On imperialism, I agree with you that the US is not yet in an openly imperial mode. Rather, I compare it to the Roman Republic in the period leading up to Empire, when the economic and political forces were in extreme tension between traditional republican institutions and emerging military dictatorship. I hope the US never gets to the dictatorship stage, but the crazy scale of its military expenditure, together with the problem of the current financial collapse, suggests to me that this unlikely result is not as farfetched as you might think.

[Grim]

I'm not sure if this movie is related to the book of the same name.

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S- ... 0374177724